NEAL v. OLIVER

Filing 40

ENTRY: Accordingly, the post-judgment motion to alter or amend judgment [Dkt 39] is denied ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/24/2013. Copy sent to ROBERT DAVID NEAL via US Mail. (DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ROBERT DAVID NEAL,
Petitioner,
vs.
JOHN OLIVER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:12-cv-00936-WTL-DML
)
)
)
)

ENTRY
Final judgment was issued in this action for habeas corpus relief on May 8, 2013.
At this point, a single post-judgment motion is pending, this being the petitioner’s motion to alter
or amend judgment filed with the clerk on May 20, 2013.
Given the timing of the post-judgment motion referenced above relative to the entry of
final judgment, and given the argument set forth in such motion, the motion will be request, the
request seeks relief within the scope of Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is
thus treated as designated as a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e). See Borrero v. City of Chicago,
456 F.3d 698, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2006) (explaining that whether a motion filed within the time
period contemplated by Rule 59(e) should be analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure depends on the substance of the motion, not on the timing or
label affixed to it).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party to move the court for
reconsideration of a judgment within 28 days following the entry of the judgment. Osterneck v.
Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989), explains that Rule 59(e) encompasses
reconsideration of matters decided on the merits. A motion for reconsideration serves a very
limited purpose in federal civil litigation; it should be used only “to correct manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co.,
827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F.Supp.
656 (N.D.Ill. 1982), aff'd 736 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1984)). “A ‘manifest error’ is not demonstrated
by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or
failure to recognize controlling precedent.’” Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606
(7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F.Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D.Ill. 1997)). Apart
from manifest errors of law, “reconsideration is not for rehashing previously rejected
arguments.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th
Cir. 1996).
There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. The arguments otherwise in the
motion to alter or amend judgment are feeble.
•

He first asserts that he should have prevailed because the respondent did not
acknowledge or respond to various discovery requests. He makes no legal
argument between this supposed portion of the record and his actual claim for
habeas corpus relief, but that is of no consequence. The court addressed this in its
Entry: “These [requests for admission] are not admissible in this action for the
following reasons: 1) they do not comply with Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; 2) the alleged admissions are from non-parties; and 3) no
discovery was authorized in this action (see Dkt. No. 21).” The court noted in its
Entry of December 7, 2012, that “[d]iscovery has not been authorized in this
action for habeas corpus relief.” This information/ruling was supplied four
months before the return to show cause was filed and likewise with the
petitioner’s replies, filed just a few weeks after the return. The discovery
argument is thus a non-issue at this point, just as it was a bogus matter prior to the
entry of final judgment.

•

The petitioner next argues that the court erred by not permitting or compelling the
controversy to be addressed through arbitration. The convoluted saga supporting
this argument does not warrant review. The court’s habeas jurisdiction cannot be
ceded elsewhere, with or without the parties’ supposed consent.

There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. See Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of
General Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995). The court did not misapprehend the
petitioner’s claims or the import of the expanded record, and likewise did not misapply the law
to those claims. The petitioner challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding. The scope of judicial
review of such proceedings is narrow. The pleadings and the expanded record show that there
was no failure to adhere to the requirements of Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472
U.S. 445, 454 (1985), and Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570-71 (1974), and that and there
was no constitutional infirmity in the proceeding which entitles the petitioner to the relief he
sought. Accordingly, the post-judgment motion to alter or amend judgment [Dkt 39] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
06/24/2013
Date: ___________________

_______________________________

Distribution:

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

ROBERT DAVID NEAL
15151-180
TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 33
TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808
All Electronically Registered Counsel